Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabine Hossenfelder

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Snow (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Hossenfelder

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is not notable enough to merit Wikipedia article, as it fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. All the references article, except Scientific American, are either publications of the subject or the pages of the institutes/organizations the subject works at. Just a single article about the subject in a 3rd party source does not establish notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubed junejo (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP She is well known in academia and also in popular science. VoltarCH
KEEPShe has had an impressive academic career, is a sought after popular science writer / communicator and her first book (with the Hachette Book Group) is due Spring / Summer 2018: (https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/basicbooks-s18-catalog.pdf). Jesswade88 (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Live Science quoted Hossenfelder as an authority when trying to evaluate the importance of Stephen Hawking's last scientific publication" ... that does it for me.Victuallers (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citation record [1][2] is enough for WP:PROF#C1; she is quoted as an expert often enough (e.g., [3][4][5][6][7], in addition to refs already in article) to satisfy WP:PROF#C7. XOR'easter (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the others above. Impressive career, passes PROF. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from potential notability as a physics popularizer, Google scholar [8] shows 6-8 publications with over 100 citations each (count a little fuzzy because it crosses one out for reasons I don't understand and another is just short). That's enough for WP:PROF#C1 for me, even in a high-citation field. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The crossed-out one with 108 citations looks to be a duplicate of the entry above; why it doesn't just list them together, I don't know. But that's still 6 papers with triple-digit citations apiece, plus one more with 99. XOR'easter (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:PROF easily. -- Dane ^talk 00:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with all comments above Nejaby (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.